Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />May 12, 1987 <br /> <br />Krueger reviewed staff report for a purchase agreement for a va- <br />cant parcel of land in Tax Increment Financing District No.6 <br />which relates to the next item on the agenda. <br /> <br />Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Williams, to AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR <br />AND THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH RAYMOND <br />BLANSKI FOR THE VACANT PROPERTY IN THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF TENTH <br />STREET N.W. AND 11TH AVENUE N.W. IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000.00 IN- <br />CLUDING THE ADDENDUM TO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />Locke reviewed staff report concerning a development agreement <br />with Richard Brama, noting it is anticipated the $1,075,000 <br />project (generating $30-35,000 per year in tax increment, which is <br />consistent with the targeted amount we have planned for this site) <br />would be under construction this year and be on the tax rolls as <br />of January 1, 1988; and reported Jim O'Meara of O'Connor & Hannon <br />drafted the agreement and is here to answer questions. <br /> <br />Locke indicated the technical analysis was not done in the stan- <br />dard way for this project primarily because when the District was <br />set up two years ago, the expenses incurred in acquiring the pro- <br />perty is no longer a question in attempting to balance -the pro- <br />ject; and indicated the analysis was done as part of the overall <br />development district financial planning with the key ingredient <br />being to get as much value on the property as we can as quickly as <br />we can. Locke then indicated a $1 million project is what had <br />been targeted for this piece of the overall District. <br /> <br />Based on the financial analysis, Benke asked if all of the values <br />are agreed to in the contract in terms of cash flow, as opposed to <br />the tax rate sensitive issues. Locke stated the city is guaran- <br />teed the minimum valuation; with this project, because of the bond <br />money, we are not in a position to specifically require a guaran- <br />teed amount to cover the bond amount, so the Agreement has been <br />structured based on the minimum valuation and an Assessment Agree- <br />ment signed to cover that amount. <br /> <br />Benke asked what happens if legislation changes the property tax <br />assessment ratio; Locke indicated that would affect our increment <br />collected. <br /> <br />In response to Benke's r~quest for the definition of protection in <br />the agreement, O'Meara stated the Agreement calls for selling the <br />land for $1.00 which is the major extent of the public assistance; <br />the other protection is the Assessment Agreement; all than can be <br />guaranteed are the market values which is the starting point for <br />property taxes (then you go to assessed value and mill rates); <br />does not have a guarantee by the developer to pay the city a sum- <br />certain by way of property taxes or payments in lieu of those <br />taxes; with this project we are dealing with tax exempt proceeds, <br />which, if you try to guarantee the payment back by the developer <br />of sufficient monies to in turn payoff your bonds, you are get- <br />ting into private parties guaranteeing tax exempt bonds. <br /> <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />Purchase Agreement <br />TID No. 6 <br />Blanski <br />Report 87-132 <br /> <br />Development Agree- <br />ment - Brama <br />Report 87-133 <br />Resolution 87-55 <br />